feat(cjs-to-esm): update package.jsons

[AugustinMauroy]

close #342

[avivkeller]

Can't we just modify JSON, rather than use Codemod for simple JSON transforms?

[JakobJingleheimer]

Yeah, I would expect:

1. Read pjson (as json)
2. Check if there's a problem
3. Write updated json to pjson

[AugustinMauroy]

you mean something like that ?

const source = root.text();
const pjsonData = JSON.parse(source);

[JakobJingleheimer]

Like

const rawSource = readFile(…)
const pjson = JSON.parse(rawSource)

[AugustinMauroy]

if we do that we need to enable fs on jssg context which trow a warn so user can be afraid.

Why I use full ast ?

• because we use normal codemod workflow
• we didn't mix ast with jssg object
• we have much more security/stabilty/predictability

[brunocroh]

if we do that we need to enable fs on jssg context which trow a warn so user can be afraid.

+1 - I don’t think it’s worth using fs here either. root.source() already returns the file content.

But yeah, if I’m not wrong, you can just return a string and it will replace the entire file. So something like the example below could be an easier way to achieve the same result:

const pjson = JSON.parse(root.source())
// manipulate pjson as a JS object
return JSON.stringify(pjson)

The only drawback I can think of is that formatting might be lost, but even the key order is preserved in most cases.

[AugustinMauroy]

I'm going to take a look at sting -> json parse -> js object manipulation -> json string -> string back to modemode

@alexbit-codemod & @mohebifar what is the recommandation from Codemod team when a codemod should update json file in a JSSG step ?

[alexbit-codemod]

We have cross file transformations feature (a new one). Also, we do have json support. So you should be good. Let me know if you have other questions.

https://docs.codemod.com/jssg/reference#multi-file-transforms-with-jssgtransform